https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2033&context=law_lawreview
Does the client's sixth amendment right to counsel protect fruits and instrumentalities of crime possessed by the lawyer? No. A lawyer's refusal to accept robbery proceeds as a legal fee will not implicate a suspect's sixth amendment rights, even if the suspect otherwise cannot retain private counsel. The sixth amendment grants the accused an absolute right to have counsel assist in his defense and a qualified right to counsel of his choice. The accused is entitled to employ counsel of choice if he can afford it, or to be represented by appointed counsel if he cannot."
https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-120000-attorney-fee-forfeiture-guidelines
"9-120.104 - Forfeiture of Assets Transferred to an Attorney for Representation in a Criminal Matter
Forfeiture of an asset transferred to an attorney as payment for legal fees for representation in a criminal matter may be pursued, notwithstanding the fact that the asset may have been transferred for legitimate services actually rendered, where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the attorney had actual knowledge that the asset was subject to forfeiture at the time of the transfer. However, such reasonable grounds must be based on facts and information other than compelled disclosures of confidential communications made during the course of the representation.
9-120.107 - Actual Knowledge of Forfeitability
For purposes of these guidelines, actual knowledge refers not simply to knowledge that some of a client's assets are either subject to forfeiture or from criminal misconduct. Rather, an attorney must have actual knowledge that the particular asset he/she received was subject to forfeiture. The guidelines require that there be reasonable grounds to believe that actual knowledge exists.
Reasonable grounds exist for believing that an attorney has actual knowledge that an asset is subject to forfeiture when there is evidence that it was known to the attorney at the time of the transfer either: (a) that the government had asserted that the particular asset is subject to forfeiture or (b) that the particular asset in fact is from criminal misconduct."
Anything paid in advance is a retainer and goes into a trust account that is protected. The lawyer then bills against the trust in a very meticulous way that is completely documented. If the Backpage case ins't concluded and Perkins Coie can show they didn't have foreknowledge of criminal wrongdoing and the client had the means to pay the retainer it should be protected until the verdict is rendered and on through appeals.
So, What I am getting from this is that Backpage only has to give up it's assets that have been given to a lawyer if they have no other way of showing their income. If the lawyer can say they had no reason to believe their clients were involved in criminal activity than the retainer fee is protected by the 6th amendment right to counsel. Backpage can say they made plenty of money via advertisement and fees. The fact that this money was seized says in my opinion that Perkins Coie may be in the process of being co-indicted with backpage as co-conspritators in an ongoing criminal enterprise.
The fact that Perkins Coie had their name on an account that was seized should be a big red flag a lot of people. It basically says that the Backpage case is over or Perkins Coie had foreknowledge or was involved.